The contradiction between the two motifs of self-fate determination and sovereignty at international law Case study of Ukraine crisis and crimea separation from the country

Document Type : Research Paper



The two motifs of self-fate determination and sovereignty are of the most important basic motifs ruling over global system which have been claimed through variety ways including charter of the united nations, human rights convention 1966 of organization and opinion of the international court. The contradiction between the two above motifs has been more than the past by passing the time and emergence of developments at international scopes. It is a controversial issue if a group of people have the separation right of the other country residents due to linguistic, racial or ethnic differentiations. The study of Ukraine developments shows that issuance of unilateral independence and joining to Russia at crimea region, clearly contradicts with Ukraine national governance. The study question is: what’s the status of Ukraine’s developments and crimea separation from international law and civil rights?. At this article, the investigation and explicity of crimea separation have been studied using examining the nation’s procedure specially granted bills to international court in the case of Kosovo advisory opinion in 2009, with regard to the three approaches of absolute prohibition of unilateral separation, lack of prohibition mandate of unilateral separation at international law and the doctrine of remedial separation and attempts has been done to analysis the contradiction between the two motifs of self-fate determination and nation governance right in


  1. الف) فارسی

    1. اسعد، اردلان (1393). گفت‌وگو در مورد پیامدهای حقوقی پیوستن کریمه به روسیه، مرکز بین‌المللی مطالعات صلح.
    2. جمعی از نویسندگان (1391). حق تعیین سرنوست در دولت‌های چندقومیتی، مرکز تحقیقات استراتژیک حزب دموکرات کردستان ایران.
    3. خسرو شاهین، هادی (1393). ماهنامۀ خبری تحلیلی در زمینۀ علوم اجتماعی و علوم انسانی، سال پنجم، ش 24، ص 169.
    4. دهشیار، حسین (1393). ماهنامۀ خبری تحلیلی در زمینۀ علوم اجتماعی و علوم انسانی، سال پنجم، ش 24، ص 170.
    5. زمانی، مسعود؛ و نیکوی، مجید (1394). «حق تعیین سرنوشت: بررسی جدایی کریمه از اوکراین از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل و حقوق داخلی»، فصلنامۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 73.
    6. غلامی، طهمورث (1393). اوکراین در رقابت روسیه و آمریکا، مرکز بین‌المللی مطالعات صلح،
    7. موسی‌زاده، رضا (1389). سازمان‌های بین‌المللی. چ یازدهم، تهران: میزان.
    8. محمودی، سعید (1393). دانشگاه استکهلم، بحران کریمه و پیامدهای حقوقی برای روسیه،
    9. میرعباسی، سید باقر؛ و میرکلائی، سید طه (1391). «‌نظام حقوقی بین‌المللی حاکم بر استقلال یکجانبۀ دول در آینۀ نظریۀ مشورتی 2010 دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری و دیگر اسناد موجود؛ مشروعیت یا عدم مشروعیت؟»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، سال 76، ش 77، ص 167-135.
    10. نوزانی، بهرام؛ و فرج‌زاده، سکینه (1390). «‌شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد و مسئلۀ تعارض اصل حق تعیین سرنوشت ملت‌ها با اصل حق حاکمیت ملی: مورد کوزوو»، پژوهشنامۀ علوم سیاسی، سال ششم، ش چهارم، ص 236-213.



    ب) خارجی




    11. Antonio Cassese (1995). “Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, p.112.

    12. Christian Tomuschat," Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World", in Modern Law of Self-Determination, Edited by Tomuschat, Dordrecht and Boston,1993, p.11.

    13. Georges Abi-Saab, " Conclusion", in Secession: International Law Perspective, p.474 (Marcelo Kohen, sv+c-2006); WC United Kingdom, para.43

    14. James Crawford (2006). Creation of states in International Law, Oxford, second edition.

    15. James Crawford, Creation of states in International Law, Oxford, second edition, 2006, p.119; Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp.27-33.

    16. John Chipman (1993). “Managing the Politics of Parochialism”, Survival, 35(1), p: 151.

    17. Report by Alain Pelle: p.108, para.43.

    18. Report by Thomas M. Franck: “ Opinion Directed at Question 2 of the Refernce, in Bayefsky F. Anne, Self-Determination in International Law: Quebec and Lessons Learned, p.77, para.5.2.

    19. Rosalyn Higgins, " Self-Determination and Secession" in Secession and International Law, edited by J. Dahlitz, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2003, p.36.

    20. Thomas D. Musgrave, Self Determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Clarendon Press: Oxford,1997, p.181, noted in WC Albania, para.46; WC United Kingdom, para.39.

    21. WC Bolivia, para.28; WS Iran, para.2.2 footnote 7.

    22. WS Argentina, para.69.

    23. WS Brazil, p.2; WS Venezuela, p.1; WS Libya,p.2; WS Bolivia,p.1; WS Russian Federation,para.76-78.

    24. WS China, p.2.

    25. WS China, p.8.

    26. WS China,pp.3-4; WS Egypt, para.72.

    27. WS Czech, p.7.

    28. WS Egypt, para.28; WS Azerbaijan,para.23; WS Spain, paras.25-27.

    29. WS Egypt, para.58; WS Spain, para.26; WS Iran, para.2.2 footnote 7.

    30. WS Egypt, para.67.

    31. WS France, para.4.2.

    32. WS Islamic Republic of Iran, para.1.2; WS Russia, para.78

    33. WS Spain, para.26; WS Iran, para.2.2 footnote ۷

    34. Advisory Opinion, para.79-80

    35. Cassese Antonio, "self – determination of people", PP. 27-33.

    36. Crawford James, The Creation of States in International Law, Clarendon Press Oxford, 2006,p.390

    37. Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relation and cooperation among states in accordance with the charter of the united nation GA. Resolution 2625 (xxv), 24 october 1970.

    38. Dissenting Opinion of Judge koroma.para7. Opinion of Judge Bennouna,para.۵۳;Tomka, paras.28-35;Skotniko,paras.9-17.

    39. Lauterpacht Hersh, Recognisation inInternational Law,1948, p.409.

    40. Oppenheim, International Law (1992). Ninth edition, vol. 1, pp:161-62.

    41. Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How we use it, 1994, p.125.

    42. Separate Opinion ofJudge Trindade, paras.175-176.

    43. WS Argentina, para.70; WS Romania, para.97.